Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering Master’s thesis, 30 credits | MSc Business Administration - Strategy and Management in International Organizations Spring 2017 | ISRN-number: LIU-IEI-FIL-A--17/02570--SE
Evaluating options
in design process
Mapping the historical overview of prototyping
tools from the 1930's to 2020's at Saab
Henna Karvinen
Ksenia Ipolitova
Supervisor: Marie Bengtsson
Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden +46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
English title:
Evaluating options in design process - Mapping the historical overview of prototyping tools from the 1930's to 2020's at Saab
Authors:
Henna Karvinen and Ksenia Ipolitova Advisor:
Marie Bengtsson Publication type:
Master’s thesis in Business Administration Strategy and Management in International Organizations
Advanced level, 30 credits Spring semester 2017
ISRN-number: LIU-IEI-FIL-A--17/02570--SE Linköping University
Department of Management and Engineering (IEI)
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude and appreciation to our supervisor Marie Bengtsson for the support given to us during this process. Thank you for pushing us forward, cheering up and helping us in solving this wicked problem. Additionally, we would like to thank all the “Saabs” who greatly contributed to our research, viz.: Billy Fredriksson, Gunnar Holmberg, Christopher Jouannet as well as Saab Veterans’ Club and in particular Ulf Claréus, Tor Stavöstrand. Thank you for putting us into your “aerodynamic” shoes, teaching us and sharing your memoirs.
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ...6
1.1 Research question ...7
1.1 Purpose and significance of the research ...8
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...9
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...15
3.1 PROBLEM SOLVING ...15
3.1.1 Wicked problems in complex product design ...15
3.1.2 Problem solving in complex product design ...17
3.2 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS ...20
3.3 PROTOTYPING ...22
3.2.1 Defining prototyping ...22
3.3.2 Value of prototyping ...27
3.3.3 Prototyping tools...29
5. OUTLINE OF THE THEORIES ...33
6. CASE STORY ...35
30’s to 50’s - From pen and paper to finite element method ...35
“It was in the 60's when it was all about FLYING” ...37
70’s to 80’s - Beginning of the computer age ...38
90’s to 00’s - Collaborative prototyping and 3D ...41
The present and the future ...43
7. ANALYSIS ...45
Development of prototyping and its tools ...46
Prototyping characteristics ...49
8. CONCLUSIONS...54
9. LIST OF REFERENCES ...57
10. APPENDIX ...62
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Prototyping process ...24
Figure 2. A model of “what prototypes prototype” ...25
Figure 3. Theoretical outline ...34
Figure 4. The timeline of Saab Aircraft and the prototyping tools 1930’s - 2020’s. ...44
1. INTRODUCTION
“This is how it looked like – the first Viggen!” (Saab-minnen, 2016, p. 5). The heading of a piece in magazine describing the events that influenced the creation of the aircraft Saab 37, also known as Viggen. It was simple drawings on grid paper and a paper airplane model which was flown in the office corridor that were described as the first steps in the creation process. The engineers demonstrated specific characteristics or maneuvers of the paper planes’ capability that they had. The flights were conducted in a long narrow corridor in an office part of Hangar 1. “Some of us had a slight straight-wing model about 15 cm in width, which could do three loops in a row when thrown correctly”, Erik Kullberg remembers (Saab-minnen, 2016, p. 5). This was verified with calculations and there it was: “The aircraft 37 was on its way…” (Saab-minnen, 2016, p. 5).
The story above illustrates examples of prototyping: models created to test a product or service that is to be developed, replicated or learned from. Prototyping can be seen as incremental iterative refinement (Buxton via Design Shack, 2015) and is embraced because its benefits including communication and collaboration, reducing waste while feasibility gauging, help for selling the idea, setting design priorities as well as testing usability in order to find errors and fix them earlier (Warfel, 2009). As a physical result of this process, prototypes come in different shapes and ways – sketches or blueprints, 3D or simulations, low-fidelity or high-fidelity.
“Not only do prototypes help provide proof of concept, they more importantly expose any usability flaws behind the wireframes and mockups” (Design Shack 2015, para 1). According to Jensen et al. (2017) development prototypes have gained a significant role as tangible rapid learning cycles in recent research on radical innovation. It has been argued that collaborative prototyping can furthermore provide a platform for prototype-driven problem solving in early stage of product development (Bogers & Horst, 2014).
The design problems are generally in a form of wicked problems (Conklin, 2005). This type of problem is often ill-defined and exists in a frequently changing complex environment (Conklin,
2005). Wicked problems demand unusual thinking and specific approach (Conklin, 2005). Consequently, methods and tools that are normally used for tame problems will barely provide a suitable solution for wicked problems (Conklin, 2005). Solving that type of problem always involves choice (Ackoff, 1978) that is evaluated in cognitive and experiential search (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). Prototyping helps in evaluation of possible choices and fast learning, so it is an important tool for developing problem-solving competence (Jobst & Meinel, 2014), that enables to create extra value and provides solid innovation returns (Newell & Simon, 1972).
The process and success of product development have strategic importance, however following Mascitelli (2000) only little is known how valuable breakthroughs are achieved. Sefelin et al. (2003) support these doubts and uncertainties by stating that there is a lack of empirical studies comparing various prototyping tools to prove literature examples. This leads to a need of observing prototyping tools and their effect on design process. Design process being presented as a wicked problem demands knowledge for adequate assessment of alternatives (Simon, 1996). According to (Erichsen et al., 2016) prototyping tools may entail great potential to better capture and transfer knowledge in product development. Therefore, if prototyping tools enhance the way to gain knowledge and thereafter, evaluate choices, there is a need for understanding how to develop prototyping tools. A lack of reasoning how organizations are currently prototyping (Jensen et al., 2017) then becomes crucial for companies and any product development process.
1.1 Research question
As mentioned above there are claims over a lack of reasoning how organizations are prototyping, and, moreover, a lack of empirical studies comparing different prototyping tools. We need to understand if prototyping has significant influence on problem solving process, evaluation of choices and whether it may further increase efficiency of design process which is considered as problem solving of this paper. The aim is to seek explanatory and descriptive answers on how. The research question is:
How has the development of prototyping tools impacted on evaluation of choices in design process?
The research was conducted by studying the development of prototyping tools at Saab, a Swedish military defence and civil security product, services and solutions provider. The purpose of this research was to map a historical overview of prototyping tools used in the aircraft design process in order to answer the main research question. The structure of the thesis is presented in the following chapter.
1.1 Purpose and significance of the research
In this research, the focus is on prototyping tools used to evaluate alternatives in the design process from initial concepts to finished products. While examining prototyping tools, theory of problem solving and search processes formulate the main theoretical frame for the analysis. The research reflects the linkages between using more advanced prototyping tools and efficiency of design process. This connection to prototyping tools is not highlighted in prototyping theory in addition to the lack of empirical studies comparing different prototyping tools. The research contains the case study of Saab that depicts how using different prototyping tools can affect prototyping process, enhance solving wicked problems in design by changing the way of evaluating choices.
Therefore, this research has an academical contribution and significance for organizations who are using prototyping tools. By better understanding how organizations are prototyping and dealing with the development of prototyping tools will improve efficiency and problem solving skills. Moreover, understanding of the development is “valuable for advancing management knowledge” (Langley et al., 2013, p. 1).
Key words: Prototyping, prototyping tools, problem solving, wicked problems, online and offline evaluation of choices, design process.
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The aim of this research was to map the historical overview of prototyping tools used for aircraft design at Saab in order to find impacts of this development. As a result of several interviews a timeline was created and this chapter entails what was done in the research and explains how and why certain steps were taken.
2.1 Research design
Our research design was strongly influenced by the nature of a design thinking project with Saab that we were participating simultaneously. Based on the project we found prototyping to be interesting object for the research due to several linkages to organizational theories. Therefore, the theoretical frame was designed so that we could reflect the historical development of the prototyping tools to theories connected to factors that are central for a company’s performance. The research was initially inspired by Gavetti and Levinthal (2000) because of their view over search theory and evaluation of choices. This article made us look into evaluation of options more broadly as a part of problem solving process, since prototyping is a way of dealing with design problems (Dorst, 2011).
Our interest toward a combination of prototyping and organizational theories was supported by Langley et al. (2013, p. 1) who state that “understanding process questions is important and valuable for advancing management knowledge”. Due to our limited access to classified material at Saab and the theoretical lack of prototyping tools made us look more in-depth into the tools and their influence. For example, we noticed that a model presented by Plattner et al. (2014) presents factors of wicked problem solving competence, including wicked problem self-efficacy, prototyping skills and training but excludes prototyping tools. Furthermore, related to our project with Saab, we visited the Swedish Air Force Museum and EMBRAER that made us more engaged to look into the usage of prototyping tools in aircraft design in particular.
In order to examine how different prototyping tools have changed, it started to become clear in the beginning that we needed to look into prototyping from different time periods to find patterns or the most crucial changes. Since we were mapping the historical overview of prototyping tools and their influence on prototyping, evaluation of choices, and design process,
qualitative methodology seemed to serve our purpose. Langley et al. (2013) support our decision by stating that most of the process studies adopt qualitative methodology “to capture the nuances of processes in and around organizations”. Following Langley et al. (2013) process studies have been underrepresented in management journals, which created an opportunity for us to make a contribution in methodology-wise through our process study.
Since we chose to look at design process as problem solving, the structural overview starts with the theoretical concept of problem solving. Since design problems exist usually in a form of wicked problems, the problem solving chapter focuses on wicked type of problems. Further we present evaluation of options as a part of problem solving process. The main focus of this research culminates around prototyping that is connected to wicked problem solving and evaluation of options. The interrelatedness between prototyping and business field such as management and organizational structures is also presented at the same time as well as the relevance of it.
The theoretical frame is designed to use the theory as a tool to analyze the collected data. Therefore, we present a visualization model of the relevant theories as an outline. By having the theory as a core of the paper, it is continued with the empirical case story and a timeline that is created based on the data collection. Thereafter, the development is analyzed with the aim that the empirical findings could supplement the theory with practical examples. The theoretical visualization model and its parts are utilized as a tool for analyzing the empirical data. Thus, the paper concludes with an overview of the findings as well as argumentation of the usage of prototyping tools in an organization regarding the evaluation of choices when facing wicked problems.
2.2 Single case study
The relatively long historical development and the nature of process study, led us to a decision of conducting a single case study. The type of case applied is explanatory and interpretative case that uses historical information focused around questions (Cunningham, 1997). This decision was supported by Cunningham’s (1997) intensive methods that a case study can produce a unique but typical history of experiences and events, description or interpretation as a result. Since, a case study can also be qualitative study, it was compatible with having a
qualitative process study. The possible data acquisition methods can vary between surveys, interviews, observation and utilization of archives in case studies (Järvinen & Järvinen, 2004), which served our need to conduct interviews and analyze archive materials.
The Eisenhardt’s (1989) eight research steps described by Järvinen and Järvinen (2004) were followed in this research to conduct a case study that is based on a reliable research method. Firstly, the research question was formulated but theory or any hypothesis were not created since space was left for theoretical flexibility. However, the question definition was enough to guide our actions. In Eisenhardt’s (1989) steps the second one is the choice of cases. Even though we knew about a possibility of writing the thesis with Saab, we received a confirmation after we had started to outline possible research questions in mind. Thirdly came choosing the tools and working methods. Next step was going to the field in order to carry out data collection and combine that for the analysis. After analyzing the data, we formulated hypothesis that usually strengthens and broadens the theory. As the seventh step, was to examine and reflect the findings with theory and literature that agrees and disagrees. This was important in order to create validity in content wise as well as to sharpen the definitions of the concepts, increase theoretical level of the paper and enhance generalization of the findings. Lastly, we ended the process. Eisenhardt (1989) describes the last step to be achieved when an additional case would produce only a little of improvement. Regarding the limited scope of this research and long duration of prototyping history at Saab, additional cases of different companies or further research within this case would provide more in-depth interrelations, causal connections and understanding. In that sense, the last step of Eisenhardt’s (1989) process was not fulfilled.
We chose case study as the methodology of this research also because according to Yin (1989) case studies can answer to questions how or why with an aim of explaining causal connections or usually events from a longer time period. Also, a case study can be applied when finding answers to more explorative question what (Yin, 1989). Yin (1989) highlights the importance of practicing and planning of data collection. During the empirical research and interviews, we noticed what Yin (1989) additionally points out: presenting the right questions, guiding a semi-structured interview, and interpreting the answers can be challenging at times. The case study methodology required us to be flexible in terms of asking new questions during the interviews if the person did not act expectedly and read the conversation and situation between the lines in order to achieve the goal of the research. However, the methodology also gave us flexibility in terms of who to interview. Nevertheless, the empirical phase required a well-established
knowledge about the topic. Additionally, when creating a joint timeline collected from different interviews, it was crucial to identify contradictory information, not just connections in stories. As Miles and Huberman (1994) emphasize, when choosing a single case, one must pay attention what might be found out when interviewing certain people, focusing on certain events, or following certain processes. Therefore, we chose to pay attention to the different prototyping tools, significant changes in the organization and the development of the aircraft over the years.
2.3 Data collection and analysis
After evaluating our options for collecting data, we chose interviews to be our main source due to several reasons. We compared the goal of the research and data collection between how much access we would get since most material was classified. Additionally, since documentation has been made and stored differently throughout the past, interviews were an efficient way of collecting information.
2.3.1 Saab
Saab (Saab Group, originally Svenska Aeroplan AB, later Saab AB) is a Swedish company which provides military defence and civil security product, services and solutions. Saab divides their solutions into air, land, naval, security and civil aerospace. Saab was founded in 1937 and nowadays it operates worldwide within the industry of aerospace and defence.
Saab was a natural alternative for the research due to the already existing collaboration regarding the additional project. Saab is also a company where product development is one of the key processes. The company has a long history and well-established position with governmental support in Sweden. Due to the nature of the company, it is relatively little researched and, therefore, an interesting environment. Furthermore, the military field is historically known to be innovation driven in its own way and some innovations have been refined for civil usage, e.g. GPS. The focus of the research at Saab was narrowed down into aerospace side meaning aircraft development. This was a new context for both of us. Even though we were curious toward this newness, we realized soon in the beginning the need to learn engineering vocabulary related to aircraft design to interpret information accurately so that this would not become a barrier for our research.
2.3.2 Interviews
Interviews were semi-structured in order to leave space and possibility for discussion. However, at the same time the questions were needed in order to improve comparability in the way of asking questions and discussing about same topics despite the events would take place in other decades. In other words, the semi-structured interview guided us to fill out the timeline from the same perspective throughout the history.
The interviews were conducted with people who had been or were involved in the development or implementation of the prototyping tools as well as the users of those tools. The priority was to collect first-hand information. Most of the interviewees had additional material to support the interviews such as publications, articles, documentations, unclassified archive material and presentations. This secondary data was concluded in the case story as a part of the interviews. These forms of data collection served our research methodology as well, since according to Van de Ven (2007) a typical longitudinal study can include interviews with key managers and participants and documents or reports from news media and organizational archives as a way of gathering data.
2.3.3 Narrative and timeline
The research produced a timeline that shows the development of prototyping tools at Saab. The strategy for creating a timeline was to go back in time when Saab was founded. The decision of researching development over 80 years felt too broad at times. However, Van de Ven (2007. p. 196) claims that a “change can be empirically determined by longitudinal observations of the entity over two or more points in time on a set of dimensions, and then noticing a difference over time in these dimensions”. In case a noticeable variation can be observed, it can be stated that the entity has changed (ibid.). This supported our decision to examine such a broad historical period.
The company was founded in the late 30’s when the product design was approached by using primitive prototyping tools. Already in 20 years it had significantly changed due to the technological development. It was decided to start analyzing from the very beginning to show
how the amount of online evaluation of choices reduced with the changes in prototyping tools, therefore, improving the problem solving skills in aircraft design. Firstly, the emphasis was on getting the years of different milestones. Below the years, we listed the different tools used in each time period. In addition to the tools, we listed impacts that were brought to our attention during the interviews. These impacts were organizational, structural and matters related to working methods among other things. The timeline was connected to relevant aircraft produced by Saab in order to illustrate what was developed in practice.
However, while conducting the narrative and timeline, we observed what Langley et al. (2013, p. 5) claim: “each event arises out of, and is constituted through, its relations to other events. Each event can be further analyzed in terms of smaller events”. Writing the case story turned out to be more challenging than we expected. The length of the examined time period made it harder to pay attention to right events and size of the events. To sort out and prioritize the information, we started by going through our notes from the interviews and afterwards, listening to the interviews. Additionally, a preliminary timeline was created with each interview. Later all the timelines were combined and the accuracy was confirmed by three interviewees.
One joint overview was designed to illustrate a toolbox for prototyping. Based on that the overview could be analyzed, how and why it had developed and what were the impacts of the development. By organizing everything on a chronological timeline and categorizing the output of interviews, we sought patterns or factors that maintained to be valid despite different time periods. When analyzing the case story in addition to the timeline, our approach was to keep a connection between empirical data and theory. The timeline was designed to complement the theory also, since we aimed to find out how tools had developed over the years and what sort of impacts they might have had in practice.
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3.1 PROBLEM SOLVING
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein.
According to one of the traditional theories of problem solving presented in 1972 by Newell and Simon, every problem exists in its own environment involving other related aspects as well. Based on the difference between certain and uncertain problem core and the environment it exists in, the problems are classified into three subgroups: tame, wicked and crisis (Grint, 2005). Tame problem can be intricate but exist in a fairly uncertain environment and can be solved in unilinear manner, such as planned surgery. As a comparison, wicked problem is complex with no clear structure, goal or ending point (Grint, 2005; Jobst & Meinel, 2014; Rittel & Webber, 1973). There is no “right” or “wrong” solution that could be built through unilinear process, for instance, a strategy for healthcare sector (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Critical situation is another type of the problem that involves crisis situation and demands immediate action, such as a terrorist attack (Grint, 2005).
Design of a complex product, such as aircraft, may involve all types of problems. However, generally design problems are in a form of wicked problems (Conklin, 2005). Therefore, the theoretical chapter as well as the further research is focused on the wicked problems and the process of problem solving in the context of complex product design.
3.1.1 Wicked problems in complex product design
Product or service design is a challenging process with a wide range of constraints and needs various mental models to deal with a task (Houde & Hill, 1997). Design problems are often ill-defined and exist in a complex environment that tends to change rapidly and, therefore, barely can be controlled (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Jobst & Meinel, 2014). In the 60’s that kind of problems were given a name of a wicked problem and identified usually to occur in design
process by the design theorist Horst Rittel. Wicked problems were defined as a "class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing” (Churchman, 1967, p. 1). Due to the ill-structure of wicked problems, usual thinking, tools or methods that are used for tame problems do not give an optimal result (Jobst & Meinel, 2014). However, even partial formulation of a wicked problem introduces the formulation of the solution (Rittel & Webber, 1973) and influences on the problem characteristic.
Simon (1973) makes a clear distinction between well- and ill-defined problems. However, Dorst (2006) questions whether the line is as easily identified in practise. If problem solving involves learning or redefining the problem (which is typical for the wicked problem), the problem is likely to be ill-defined (Dorst, 2006). Moreover, none of the problems in real world can be well-defined (ibid.). While the way to create a solution for the ill-defined problem is to learn and define its structure (ibid.). Thus, through the learning process problem becomes well-defined (ibid.). This requires analyzing and systemizing problem environment in order to create a structure of the problem (Thienen et al., 2012).
According to Ackoff (1978) a problem environment consists of five main components of (1) decision makers who are involved into the problem solving, (2) controllable variables, (3) uncontrollable variables, (4) other factors existing dependently or independently from controllable or uncontrollable variables, (5) possible outcomes depending on a decision maker choice and uncontrollable variables. In addition to the complex structure every wicked problem is an indication of another “higher level” wicked problem (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Ackoff, 1978). Product design is an example of a rising complexity when the design problem is divided into small subproblems since each of it will lead to a new problem environment with other multiple constraints (Jobst & Meinel, 2012).
The trap here lies in intuitive approach to a problem when “facing a difficult question we answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution” (Kahneman, 2011, p. 12). Moreover, a barrier that people face in processing information is related to a limited ability to analyze problem complex structures (Newell & Simon, 1972). Wicked problem as a mixture of specific information from various fields, demands great mental ability and concentration to work in constant ambiguity and deal with complexity of the problem. Overload of human
memory in that case affects long-term memory capacity and thus, limits finding necessary information (Jobst & Meinel, 2012). Furthermore, when it is not possible mentally to deal with a problem, human mind tends to simplify the problem (Newell & Simon, 1972). Therefore, it leads to the simplified solution that will not be satisfying (Jobst & Meinel, 2012) and there is a risk that when a subproblem is solved, it is taken as a final solution to the main problem. Thus, it is important that design team stays open-minded and thinks creatively of the challenge (Ackoff, 1978). Thorough exploration of the task environment enables them to learn fast and build a solution carefully due to the users’ needs (Thienen et al., 2012).
The complexity of design problem is increased because members involved in the design project have usually different specializations such as engineering, product design, management, etc. (Houde & Hill, 1997). This means that project members have usually different experience, mental models of the world and perspectives on the product design (Houde & Hill, 1997). Since there is no clear definition what design is, project members interpret design process differently and cannot follow common project philosophy, goals and procedures that should be implemented to create a product (Buchanan, 1992). Therefore, wicked problem occurs when efficient communication and learning should be enhanced among designers and scientists (Buchanan, 1992; Thienen et al, 2012). Design of a complex product involves various sciences into the process, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics etc. For a designer, it is rarely possible to fit the design challenge into one of those, and it triggers a problem in communication between participants (Buchanan, 1992). Furthermore, as previous design research shows, user problems and preferences may enhance problem wickedness as well (Rittel & Webber, 1973).
In case of a wicked problem, complexity of its environment does not allow to find a solution through the linear process. Further, problem solving is considered as a process of achieving desirable goals in complex product design.
3.1.2 Problem solving in complex product design
According to the traditional definition of a problem, one occurs when at the starting point there is not enough specific knowledge or understanding of how to reach the goal (Newell & Simon, 1972). The goal can be represented by a physical object or can be quite abstract. This process can be presented by the following equation (Dorst, 2011):
WHAT + XXX = RESULT
Pursuing a goal, or solving a problem, usually demands physical actions (running, writing), perceptual activity (looking, listening) or mental (analyzing, investigating) (Newell & Simon, 1972). In this representation of problem solving process unknown way how to solve the problem is named in the equation as XXX. However, wicked problem solving in product design context has more complicated structure (Dorst, 2011):
YYY + XXX = VALUE
Wicked problem in complex product design means that both the product (YYY) and working principle (XXX) should be identified at the same time (Dorst, 2011). The equation with two unknown variables is usually interpreted as a design process scheme reflecting a wicked problem that a company is looking a solution for (ibid.). Wicked problem as a product design problem does not have right or wrong solution (Rittel & Webber, 1973). In the product design context, however, users’ needs tend to change rapidly with the time (Ackoff, 1978). “Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”, every attempt counts significantly” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 163). If design team did not manage to produce a solution that covers customers’ needs, the process cannot be started again from the beginning (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Thus, design team is fully responsible for the solution it presents (ibid.).
However, a problem can be solved in the most suitable way when it is extremely close to satisfy customer needs (Ackoff, 1978). Product design demands a rapid solution that is ideal for a current time since the solution can be always improved by future aspects such as more advanced technology or new information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom (Ackoff, 1978). As stated above, design team members have different perspectives on the problem core and its environment and, thus on the way, it should be solved. Thus, the final solution can be ideal for one of the participants and not good enough for the other (Ackoff, 1978).
In practice, according to Newell & Simon (1972), the behavior of problem solver is adaptive. Facing a problem human mind works as an adaptive toolbox (Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999). It consists of several cognitive mechanisms for reasoning and analyzing. The mechanisms were developed with the evolution of human mind presenting a basis for the problem solving
(Bettman, 1979; Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; Payne et al., 1993). Thus, the problem solver behavior is affected by the situation he is in (Newell & Simon, 1972; Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999). Problem solving is based on creating a representation of a problem environment using the mental models (Ackoff, 1978, Newell & Simon, 1972). Often it may happen when the problem solver fails to identify the root of the problem and, thus, focuses on the symptoms of the problem (Ackoff, 1978). Therefore, the representation may contain errors of the problem environment, and, created solution for the problem is wrong and does not solve the problem (Ackoff, 1978). Early error spotting leads to intelligent and educated way of problem solving and successful innovation (Proctor, 1999).
Every individual has cognitive mechanisms as mental models which has a significant role in problem solving process (Bettman, 1979; Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; Payne et al., 1993). Cognitive search for a problem solution is complemented with experiential search with interrelation between online and offline evaluation of choices (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). The importance of balancing those two and their role in problem solving is described in the following chapter.
3.2 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS
Wicked problem solving always involves choice (Ackoff, 1978), evaluation of alternatives and making judgements (Newell & Bröder, 2008). Following Gavetti and Levinthal (2000), the cognitive-based choices are made with the mental models of the world people have and cognitive map of action-outcome linkages. The efficiency of the action choice depends on how accurate the linkages are (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). Cognitive search involves a form of evaluation of a choice with no real engagement into testing it and is called offline evaluation (ibid.). It is used to frame a problem environment and simplify it (ibid.) due to the limited mental capability of human mind.
Halford et al. (1994) identified three dependent and one independent variables that human mind is able to process at the same time. Therefore, usually the behavior of a problem solver is led by simplified representations of a problem core and its environment (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). Nevertheless, understanding of the world is limited by that person’s mental model of the world and simultaneously the responses are restricted by the experiences he had (ibid.). Furthermore, mental models of the world that people have are affected by the experience they get over the years (ibid.).
The experience-based choices are based on the feedback any solution gets during its real testing. In constantly changing environment experiential search plays a role of a sense making tool (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). Regarding experience, March (2010) questions what should be the role of experience in creating intelligence especially in organizations. As Gavetti and Levinthal (2000) describe that organizational behavior comprises both forms of intelligence; backward-looking logic of stimulus-response learning and a forward-looking logic of consequences. However, Gavetti and Levinthal (2000) support March (2010) on the claim that experience can be inadequate. According to Gavetti and Levinthal (2000, p. 135) “intelligent action is driven both by one's understanding of the world and adaptive responses to prior experiences”.
The more favorable form of experience for the organization is direct experience. Individual who gained “know-how” or “procedural” knowledge can create more precise action-outcome
linkages (March, 2010). When further development has become limited, a fresh perspective can stimulate changes in cognitive representations (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). The changes that are implemented substantially will lead to the superior innovation result (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). Therefore, it is a matter of importance for a company to monitor formation, persistence and adoption of cognitive representations because even simple models of the world have a great potential to guide search processes (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). Furthermore, individual interpretation influences significantly on the design process and how the alternatives are evaluated (Dorst, 2006). The reason is in subjectivity of interpretation that may cause errors in creating problem representation (Ackoff, 1978).
However, March (2010) points out the dilemma and disagreement that lies in the pursuit of intelligence: “In almost every kind of specialized human activity, experience effects are positive. Experience, however, is not a perfect teacher” (March, 2010, p. 102). Therefore, problems are partly born already in a phase of thinking, but, especially, when the learning from experience is confused by its quality and structure (March, 2010).
To sum up, experienced-based choice is based on positive and negative enforcements of previous choices. The way of evaluating choices happens online though actual experience and therefore, the variety of considered options is narrow and the alternatives are similar to each other. In the online evaluation, alternatives are “local”, meaning they are relative to the specific situation where the evaluation has to be made. Comparing to offline mode of evaluation, which is used for cognitive-based choices, the alternatives are “distant”. The variety of considered options is broad and enables to consider more extensive alternatives since there are no real consequences. In other words, the cognitive-based choice is based on a problem solver’s mental models of the world. (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000)
One way of creating a physical representation of the problem as well as the environment it exists in is prototyping (Thienen et al., 2012). Prototyping demands certain knowledge about the problem and bases a solution on the mental models the participants have (Jobst & Meinel, 2012). Due to the limitations of human minds to process complex data, prototyping enable to transfer knowledge into physical object that helps not to lose important information. It is a rational approach of solving wicked problem in product design (Thienen et al., 2012) that is presented in the following chapter.
3.3 PROTOTYPING
According to Dorst (2011, p. 521) design thinking has become popular and is seen as “an exciting new paradigm for dealing with problems”. Design thinking and prototyping have become relevant and more and more common. From a business perspective, design thinking utilizes methods and an approach to match user’s needs and experience with feasible solutions which can furthermore be converted into customer value and market opportunities with a prospective business strategy. The methodology of design thinking has emerged from engineering and design over the past thirty years and it “integrates human, business and technical factors in problem forming, solving and design” (Leifer & Steinert, 2011, p. 151). Design thinking “promotes iterative learning cycles driven by rapid prototyping” and creates innovations, products, systems, and services through prototyping and with a user-centric perspective (ibid.).
In order to “understand and test possible solutions to complex or wicked problems”, prototypes are needed for learning possibilities that they provide (Hobday et al., 2012, p. 21). Prototypes are also considered to be valuable form of visualization for generating solutions within design (ibid.). Furthermore, for example engineering design “aims to generate alternative solutions to satisfy performance requirements and software specifications” that aircraft development represents well (Leifer & Steinert, 2011, p. 151).
Better understanding the value of prototyping, how organizations are prototyping and using different tools for that matter, gives a foundation to seek linkages further to problem solving as well as evaluation of choices, theory of search processes. This chapter will not focus on prototypes as products rather on prototyping as activity.
3.2.1 Defining prototyping
“If Ernest Hemingway, James Mitchener, Neil Simon, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Pablo Picasso could not get it right the first time, what makes you think that you will? – Paul
Heckel” (Buxton, 2007)
In the history of Apple, there were failures. For instance, the hockey-puck shaped mouse which did not serve for usability. However, the failures along the journey were a learning process and key to success. Steve Jobs needed to fail in order to succeed (Buxton 2007). The same mindset applies for prototyping. It is a process of exploring ideas, failing often and learning quickly (Warfel, 2009; Plattner et al., 2014). In the case of Apple, Buxton (2007, p. 52) believes that “some of the design flaws in the device’s user interface could – and likely would – have been caught if the user interface designers had been involved earlier in the project”. As an example of the process, iPod is considered to be an ‘overnight success’ by some, however it took more than three years to do so, and four device generations to develop into what is was when it flourished (Buxton, 2007).
“If people try on jeans before buying them and test-drive cars before signing the check, then it only makes sense to test your designs interactively before they go into development” (Design Shack, 2015). Comparably, athletes regardless of their sport train to become faster and stronger, since practice is a crucial part of learning to become better. Warfel (2009) describes building a product or service before testing it as insane and compares that to athletes competing without practicing beforehand. Therefore, Warfel (2009) claims that prototyping is not just another tool for a design toolkit, rather it is a design philosophy. “As you practice, you learn, and as you learn, you improve” (Warfel, 2009, p. XII). Prototyping is a way of practice. Leifer and Steinert (2011) support this philosophy by arguing that prototyping is a way of minimizing time and barriers to learning.
As a part of understanding prototyping, it is vital to also know what prototypes are. Prototypes are early samples or models built to test a product, concept or service that is to be developed, replicated or learned from. Prototypes come in different shapes and ways – sketches or blueprints, 3D or simulations, low-fidelity or high-fidelity. Prototypes can be used in different fields and for various purposes. Prototypes can be used to provide proof of concept functionality but also to expose possible usability flaws (Design Shack, 2015).
However, prototypes should not be confused with prototyping, but be merely considered as one outcome of prototyping activity. According to Buchenau and Suri (2000) prototyping is a key design activity and as an activity prototyping can be seen as “incremental repetitive refinement” (Buxton, 2007, p. 138) or as “a rapid, iterative process” (Warfel, 2009, p. 100). By referring to an iterative incremental refinement, Buxton (2007, p. 388) clarifies that “prototyping is like a
spiral closing in along a single trajectory”. Each prototype acts as a refinement of the previous one, taking the designers closer to a finalized product by each new prototype (Buxton, 2007). Therefore, prototyping should not be considered as direct technique for exploration, but more as form of frequentative refinement and validation (ibid.). To illustrate the difference, Buxton (2007, p. 388) compares prototyping as “incremental repetitive refinement” to design as “branching exploration and comparison”. This way design is seen as exploring and comparing alternatives of different paths where only one will be part of the product and the choice of the path can be changed (Buxton, 2007).
Figure 1. Prototyping process
Source: Recreated by the authors based on Buxton, 2007.
Helander et al. (1997) propose an additional perspective in the terminology about prototypes of interactive artifacts used by designers. With the term artifact, Helander et al. (1997) mean the interactive system that is being designed. It “may be commercially released product or any end-result of a design activity such as a concept system developed for research purposes” (Helander et al., 1997, p. 369). Twenty years ago the terminology was focusing merely on attributes of prototypes. In other words, the focus was on used tools or how refined-looking or
–behaving the attributes were. Helander et al. (1997, p. 379) claim that “tools can be used in many different ways, and resolution can be misleading”. Therefore, they present a model that can be used to categorize design problems with three different questions; 1) what role will the artifact play in user’s life, 2) how should it look and feel, 3) how should it be implemented?
According to Helander et al. (1997), each question may benefit from a different approach of prototyping.
Figure 2. A model of “what prototypes prototype”
Source: Recreated by the authors based on Helander et al., 1997.
The model can be used to separate design issues despite the scope or size of the given design problem to help evaluate and choose certain type of prototyping approach (Helander et al., 1997). Moreover, the model helps to visualize the focus point of exploration. By marking where the prototype fits on the triangle shaped model, it shows the purpose of the prototype for the designers as well as their audiences. Further, it indicates the purposes of the prototype; what is it intended to explore and what not (ibid.).
Even though, the model presented by Helander et al. (1997) can be seen as a relative and subjective representation, since it implies the designer’s own judgement, it illustrates one additional aspect of prototyping. Since “testing critical functions is a central feature of the iterative prototype development process” (Leifer & Steinert, 2011, p. 151) and prototypes are created to answer questions, the amount and quality of questions is crucial (Schrage, 1996). If a design problem is tried to be solved by creating separate prototypes assigned for different parts of the problem, it enables more specific and clear questions to be addressed before integrating the findings for the final solution. “It was more efficient to wait on the results of independent investigations in the key areas of role, look and feel and implementation than to try to build a monolithic prototype that integrated all features from the start” (Helander et al. 1997, p. 371). After working enough on the separate prototypes, an integrated version might
evolve more easily. A design problem can be approached from multiple points of view simultaneously by prototyping different parts. The model presented by Helander et al. (1997) can ease to further develop and communicate prototyping strategies afterwards.
Prototyping can appear in different forms or be referred with different terms. Buchenau and Suri (2000) focus on ‘experience prototyping’ where the value of prototypes lies in understanding existing experiences, exploring design ideas and in communicating design concepts. According to Buchenau and Suri (2000) these are critical design activities, but also factors that appear in general descriptions of prototyping in other literature. Rapid prototyping has also gained increased attention recently as a methodology (Jones & Richey, 2000). Rapid prototyping promotes reduced design and development times, while generating high quality products (ibid.) It presents benefits as efficient communication and collaboration, and testing an idea faster to improve earlier and learn more (Warfel, 2009).
Different sorts of prototyping may exist in different organizations and because of that even the prototyping culture may differ among organizations. Like any other culture, prototyping culture is “a mixture of the explicit organizational structures and the tacit understanding and practices of the participants” (Schrage, 1996, p. 2). Prototyping processes and activities might have different mindsets even within same organization. On one hand, organization might have formal prototyping processes and on the other hand more informal prototyping activities (Schrage, 1996).
Nevertheless, as described above in the chapter of problem solving theory, members of a design project might usually have different experience and perspectives on the product design (Helander et al., 1997). Therefore, a project with various skills and backgrounds might lead into a situation where everyone might have different expectations of what a prototype is (ibid.). Furthermore, in case an organization has developed its own prototyping culture, it might cause the organization to consider only certain kinds of prototypes to be valid” (Helander et al., 1997; Shrage, 1996). However, “a healthy team is made up of people who have the attitude that it is better to learn something new than to be right”. The rejected ideas are easier to accept and understand when they have been rejected with good rationale, and that will make the team learn (Buxton, 2007, p. 147).
3.3.2 Value of prototyping
Even though prototyping is mostly connected with design practices, it is also “promoted within the business community as a key element in innovation” (Buchenau & Suri, 2000, p. 1). Buxton (2007) reminds of the importance of innovation and continuous development: “No matter how good that initial product was, the company will not be able to sustain itself, much less sustain its growth, if it continues to sell that initial package unchanged” (Buxton, 2007, p. 63). Since companies are aiming to make these new products, the ‘healthy teams’ mentioned earlier are needed to learn in order to further evolve products and innovate (Buxton 2007). Therefore, and for the sake of developing performance and usability of the product, there is a need for executive managers and product managers among others to provide and maintain conditions for successful and maintainable design (Buxton 2007). Furthermore, following Schrage (1996, p. 8), “differences in corporate prototyping cultures lead to qualitatively and quantitatively different products”. Therefore, it is also justifiable why organizations need to understand the various ways of prototyping if they wish to transform their new-product development (Schrage, 1996).
The process of prototyping- is embraced because its benefits including communication and collaboration, reducing waste while feasibility gauging, help for selling the idea, setting design priorities as well as testing usability in order to find problems and fix them earlier (Warfel, 2009). It has been argued that a form of collaborative prototyping can provide a platform for prototype-driven problem solving in early new-product-development (Bogers & Horst, 2014). Terwiesch and Loch (2004) describe the collaborative prototyping process as a search process for the ideal product specification for custom-made products involving the producer and user of the product. Schrage (1996) argues that there is no straight one right way to do prototyping. Since companies need to develop a prototyping mix that serves well for their markets and products prototyping strategies are varied (Schrage 1996). Schrage (1996) further continues that “prototypes are as much a medium for managing risks as they are a medium for exploring opportunities” (p. 10). Following this thought prototypes can be considered both “as an insurance policy or as an option on the future.” (ibid.).
It is also claimed by Schrage (1996), that the innovation approach of prototyping became popular mainly due to its cost efficiency and facilitating communication process within and
across stakeholder groups in design. As Buxton (2007, p. 337) quotes Fred Brooks Jr.: “The later in the process that a mistake is detected, the more expensive it is to fix”. Warfel (2009) supports these arguments by describing that “as a generative process, prototyping often leads to innovation and a significant savings in time, effort, and cost”. Therefore, as previously pointed out organizations tend to use prototyping as an efficient tool for innovation (Blomkvist
& Holmlid, 2011). To quote Aristotle, “the things we have to learn before we do them, we learn by doing them”. Prototyping enables “a novel user interface design to be developed without having first to implement complex underlying technologies” (Helander et al., 1997, p. 374). Prototypes generated by prototyping are also used to discover market feedback in good time, before the final production (Schrage, 1996) which further supports the argument for cost efficiency.
Prototyping is also an example of cognitive representation and a tool for evaluation of alternatives and learning. It is an important tool for enhancing complex problem-solving competence (Jobst & Meinel, 2014). It is claimed that complex problem solving competence can be enhanced by improving prototyping skills (Jobst & Meinel, 2014). Also in terms with problem solving, the prototyping centric design thinking methodology “integrates human, business and technical factors in problem forming, solving and design” (Leifer & Steinert, 2011, p. 151). Design thinking furthermore “creates a vibrant interaction environment that promotes iterative learning cycles driven by rapid conceptual prototyping” (Leifer & Steinert, 2011, p. 151). According to Jensen et al. (2017) development prototypes have gained a significant role as tangible rapid learning cycles in recent research on radical innovation. These learning cycles represent the necessary mind-set in order to develop innovative solutions.
As previously mentioned, the triangle shaped model presented by Helander et al. (1997) showed that a design problem can be approached simultaneously from several perspectives. Yet, the model makes it easier enhance communication of prototyping. Prototyping shows not only to be connected to examining problems but also to evaluation of alternative solutions (Helander et al., 1997). Prototypes are often built to represent different stages of a design process and to evaluate and explore different alternatives in these stages (ibid.). However, since the design process is an evolving one, it can be challenging and difficult to create prototypes of a whole design in the different stages (ibid.). This creates another challenge, which is to identify what details should be prototyped, since the whole product often cannot be presented
(ibid.). Communicating the prototypes “limited purposes to its various audiences is a critical aspect of its use.” (Helander et al. 1997, p. 367).
A factor that makes prototyping successful, is “clarifying what aspects of a prototype correspond to the eventual artifact - and what don’t” (Helander et al., 1997, p. 368). This is crucial since prototypes are usually not self-explanatory (ibid.). Therefore, overcoming the challenge of building “prototypes which produce feedback from users on the most important design questions” is beneficial. Furthermore, it might not only be difficult for designers to communicate clearly about prototypes to a broad audience (intended users, design teams, supporting organizations), but also among designers. Primary due to limited understanding of design practice and latter “requires effort due to differing perspectives in a multi-disciplinary design team” (ibid.).
3.3.3 Prototyping tools
“Choosing the right focused prototypes to build is an art in itself. Be prepared to throw some prototypes away, and to use different tools for different kinds of prototypes.” (Helander et al.
1997, p. 379)
Prototyping tools come in many forms, from paper sketches to advanced coding software (Warfel, 2009). The tools allow to test different factors and according to Leifer and Steinert (2011) even the choice of the prototype resources can impact on the amount of the created alternatives. For example, a prototype created with CAD (Computer-aided design; used for creating and modifying a design) “least likely to be considerably changed in following iteration cycles” because the software capability is limiting possible ideation changes, whereas tangible 3D prototypes enable to create more alternatives (Leifer & Steinert, 2011, p. 162). According to Helander et al. (1997) different tools need to be used for different prototyping tasks along with teaming up “with other people with complementary skills” (p. 368) when designing well. “No one tool supports iterative design work in all of the important areas of investigation” (Helander et al., 1997, p. 368).
Example of integration prototype called the “SoundBrowser” (presented by Helander et al., 1997) “shows the value of using different tools for different kinds of design exploration”. When
an organization’s abilities in a new product design are limited, there is a need for prototyping techniques development to arrive at better solutions that are end-user needs and preferences centered (Coughlan et al., 2007). How should the right prototyping method be selected then? According to Warfel (2009) there are multiple different factors that should be taken into account while deciding the suitable prototyping method and tools. Warfel (2009) states that correct prototyping method for each situation can be identified by answering to the questions listed below. Depending on the situation and thus answers, the correct method and tools change.
● What’s the goal of the prototype in question? ● Who is its audience?
● How comfortable am I with the method?
● Is it something I already know or can learn quickly?
● How effective will this method be at helping me communicate or test my design?
Prototyping tool selection is also affected by different influences (Warfel 2009). In a survey made by Warfel (2009) the top five (5) influencers defining prototyping tool selection are listed below.
1. Familiarity and availability
2. Time and effort to produce a working prototype 3. Creating usable prototype for testing
4. Price
5. Learning curve
However, Warfel (2009) lists one own influencer which has not popped out to the list and that he considers to be number one concern; knowing the audience and intent. Also, the order of the list varies for him in terms of importance. Warfel (2009) found out that the participants used more than one tool, for example combination of paper for sketching and some software.
Warfel (2009) recommends as a sum up to consider the following when selecting a prototyping method or tool. Firstly, comes the audience. With this, it is needed to consider who is going to view or interact with the prototype. Secondly, the intent should be considered; think back to the five types of prototypes - which of these do you need? After that, familiarity and learnability - are you familiar with the method or tool or willing to learn it? Next is the cost. Not only the
license cost should be considered but also the cost of downtime if you need to learn it. One factor to consider is also collaboration. If it is needed and if so, the choices are significantly limited. Further on comes distribution - how will you share it with others? As a last point Warfel (2009) recommends considering throwaway versus reusable. Meaning that “if you need reusable source code, then your choices are limited. If you’re going to throw it away, which is more likely, then your options are wide open” (ibid. p. 63).
Using the terminology described by Helander et al. (1997) current terms describing prototypes focuses “on attributes of prototypes themselves, such as what tool was used to create them” (p. 367). Helander et al. (1997) raise a concern about this certain way of relation into prototyping since the question of “how finished-looking or –behaving a prototype is” (p. 376) gets raised up more often. Helander et al. (1997) believe that these types of characterizations of a prototype can give a false impression since “capabilities and possible uses of tools are often misunderstood and the significance of the level of finish is often unclear, particularly to non-designers” (p. 368). Helander et al. (1997) further claim that it is not only significant what media or tools are used to create prototypes, but how prototypes are used by a designer to explore or demonstrate some aspect of the future artifact.
The following paradigm illustrates these sorts of differences in point of views. Buxton (2007) agrees on including users throughout the iterative process, from ideation to usability testing. However, Buxton (2007) argues sketches not being prototypes or even low-fidelity prototypes. According to Buxton (2007) a whole design phase is an iterative, user-centered process, and sketches as well as prototypes are both embodiment of the design concept in question. However, Buxton (2007, p. 139) argues that sketches and prototypes “serve different purposes, and therefore are concentrated at different stages of the design process”. Sketches dominate during the earlier ideation stages and help to explore more and various uncertainties, whereas prototypes later when converging phase starts to be bigger.
Prototyping is often connected to cost reduction, however Buxton (2007) highlights the difference between sketches and prototypes in terms of costs and investments. “Essentially, the investment in a prototype is larger than that in a sketch, hence there are fewer of them, they are less disposable, and they take longer to build.” (Buxton 2007, p. 139) To examine this from a business/company’s perspective or as Buxton (2007, p. 139) presents to be the management’s perspective, the principles of “easy come, easy go” and “the more the merrier” are being used
as an argument for the usage of sketches and making the distinction. In other words, ideas and concepts are injected or rejected based on the investment made in them, since in the end “ideas are cheap” (Buxton 2007, p. 139).
Further prototyping is considered with the case story of Saab that depicts the aspects mentioned above on the practical example. The case story presents historical development of prototyping tools with the following development of aircraft in a context of wicked problems in complex product design.
5. OUTLINE OF THE THEORIES
Development and design process of complex products form the context of this research. “The core of design is problem solving” (Jobst & Meinel, 2014, p. 105), that always involves choice (Ackoff, 1978), thus, evaluation of alternatives (Newell & Bröder, 2008). Online or offline evaluation is used for considering alternatives to find possible solution for a problem (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). To understand possible solutions to wicked problems, prototypes provide a learning possibility (Hobday et al., 2012). Since, prototypes are also seen as physical representations of different design problems, they help to evaluate and choose between options (Helander et al., 1997). Therefore, theoretically prototyping is a rational approach of solving wicked problems of product design (Jobst & Meinel, 2014). Furthermore, wicked problem solving competence can be improved by enhancing prototyping skills (Jobst & Meinel, 2014). Prototyping tools enable different possibilities, and therefore, the choice between various prototyping tools affects the characteristics of prototyping activity.
The following figure is an outline of these relevant theoretical concepts of this research. It will be used later for analyzing different dimensions of prototyping characteristics (errors, feedback, learning, collaboration, information) that have been identified to be central for analyzing the change process at Saab.
Figure 3. Theoretical outline
Source: Created by the authors.
6. CASE STORY
This chapter presents a story how Saab used different prototyping tools for solving design problems from 1930’s - 2020. The case story is conducted based on the interviews and the material received from the interviews such as publications, articles, documentations, unclassified archive material and presentations. “Saab-minnen” (Saab Recollections) is one of these secondary sources that proved to be useful to expand the historical overview. Saab-minnen is an annual publication by Saab Veterans’ Club of a collection of articles in terms of historical interest. The Club was founded in 1986 and is open to current and former employees of aerospace companies within Saab Group with 20 years or more in the company (Saab-minnen, 2016).
A timeline will serve the purpose of presenting the empirical research and its findings. Therefore, the narrative of the case story is created based on a timeline that goes back in time to 1930, as far as it was possible within the scope of this research. The timeline focuses on showing the development of tools, however, it is also connected to the development of the aircraft by Saab to better illustrate the development and the produced products. The narrative of the timeline is presented in a chronological order. In the following chapter of analysis, certain aspects of the narrative are being analyzed throughout the historical case story. The purpose of this chapter is to engage the reader to the history also from the employees’ perspective, illustrate the development, and to provide an overview not only of different tools but also of the context that Saab works with.
30’s to 50’s - From pen and paper to finite element method
In the very beginning of Saab history in the 30’s, the airplane construction was done with manually solved mathematical equations on paper with a help of mechanical calculators. At that time, different aircraft models were being evaluated depending on the knowledge and expertise of Saab employees in aerodynamics and other related sciences. The matrix method (structural and analytical method for solving systems of equations) used at that time was based
